POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

This is a bit of old news which started with a search for debate opponents on Air America Radio, but i never released the recording. I decided to release this recording today due to Meigs crawling out of his cave to "debunk" FEMA Camps with Glenn Beck. It appears Popular Mechanics would rather "debate" without an opponent as we have seen from so many who make excuses for the govt story.

That audio is great Rob, thanks for posting it.Meigs is a coward and an accomplice to the murders of 3,000 people for his involvement in the coverup of these murders. He wouldn't debate anyone because he knows he would lose -- he would be crushed. Pathetic piece of crap he is.

That audio is great Rob, thanks for posting it.Meigs is a coward and an accomplice to the murders of 3,000 people for his involvement in the coverup of these murders. He wouldn't debate anyone because he knows he would lose -- he would be crushed. Pathetic piece of crap he is.

Popular Mechanics is a leading men's magazine with a print circulation of 1.2 million. We cover science and technology news, as well as offer DIY advice to help readers take care of their homes, cars, and digital tech. Major areas of focus include: alternative energy and environmental engineering; space; aviation; digital technology; and outdoor adventure. In 2008, Popular Mechanics was nominated for three National Magazine Awards, including General Excellence. PM won the award in the Personal Service category for "Know Your Footprint," a series on creating an environmentally responsible home. Our website, popularmechanics.com offers daily news and commentary on science and technology issues.

*it should be noted that anyone can join linkedin.com for free and set up a profile, so there is no guarantee that page is authentic (even though it seems accurate). i mention this because i was able to verify that meigs attended dartmouth and that he was a 1980 graduate, along with his wife who also attended there <a href="http://unauthorized link.com/cd6a6a" target="_blank">http://unauthorized link.com/cd6a6a</a> , with whom he wrote a book:

-i could not and did not find any official documentation to estbalish/confirm what meigs studied while attending dartmouth. aside from meigs' linkedin profile and bollyn's article (who probably used linkedin as his source), there is no record of what meigs studied at one of america's most expensive ivy league schools. but assuming he did indeed study 5 years of philosophy, imo meigs is unfit and unqualified to debate any scientific or technical data, especially with regard to 9/11.

ETA:

btw - i really have to add that im by no means excusing meigs or giving him a free pass. i think its awesome that you called him rob and tried to hold his feet to the fire. i didnt say it before, and i think it requires clarification, but regardless of his lack of proper qualified expertise, meigs has attempted to play the scientific authority on the matter of 9/11, and thus he should be made to answer for it. if you ever do get him on the phone or in person, present him with technical questions first and when he refuses to answer, then ask him how it is that BA in philosophy qualifies him to have any sort of "expert" opinion or insight on the events of 9/11.

This is a bit of old news which started with a search for debate opponents on Air America Radio, but i never released the recording. I decided to release this recording today due to Meigs crawling out of his cave to "debunk" FEMA Camps with Glenn Beck. It appears Popular Mechanics would rather "debate" without an opponent as we have seen from so many who make excuses for the govt story.

Sorry about that: just shows what hitting the wrong button can do: but I guess providing you pull out of it: it can sometimes serve a good purpose.

Having spent a fair bit of my life having similar responses to my endeavours: it has often left me with the thought: does the person really want to be doing what they are doing; or are they protecting their job.

People like you or me in such a position would probably say: "well stuff the job": but we all have our different ways of going through life and that is our entitlement: whether we are doing right or wrong; that of course being up to individual interpretation.

I am not up with all things on the internet: living so far away from the concerns you hold about things that went on in your country on 9/11/2001: therefore I raise the following with respect: but during more recent times there was the discovery of aircraft components in Park Place Manhattan.

Was this a subject raised by "Popular Mechanics" at all?

It seems somebody from "Boeing" gave opinion about what the component was part of: although they apparently said they could not identify which of the two aircraft involved in the events on 9/11/2001 the component had come away from.

Has that opinion ever been formally declared by "Boeing"?

Is the component on display to the public?

Does anybody possess photographs of the component beyond those so far exhibited on the internet?

I'm under the impression that the piece was identified as part of the flap track mechanism.

As for letting others examine it, HELL NO they won't do that.

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

Dear 'amazed'.

The component certainly has the characteristics of a 'fowler flap' mechanism.

Whether it is from a Boeing 767 is under some question .

Comparison of "parts" of the component with images obtained to date of true Boeing 767 mechanism parts for the inboard and outboard flaps: does not convince me that the component recovered from Park Place is from a Boeing 767.

To be more conclusive it would be very helpful to be able to see images of the parts of a full Boeing 767 flap mechanism.

Those considered to date have the lower portion covered by the "canoe" with the parts that are visible in various state of extension.

The inboard flap of a Boeing 767 is a two slot configuration: which has more "parts" than the outboard flap which has one slot configuration.

The illustration provided in the media said to be on the advice of somebody from Boeing: indicates the component is from on a Boeing 767 inboard flap mechanism.

Separate thinking.

It is very difficult to consider how such a component normally located on the trailing edge of a wing; as substantial as the wing of a Boeing 767: which has two very strong spars between it and the leading edge of the wing: could break through the wing and then exit through the wall columns of the tower.

The drive 'actuator' of the flap mechanism of a Boeing 767 is driven by a shaft that runs along the length of the rear of the wing structure: which would offer considerable resistance to the mechanism coming away from the wing.

There has been no evidence brought forward of wing debris being found: with no evidence apparent in the wall of the tower where a wing exited.

Coming and going, this is and was a government deception. However it is my belief that 2 aircraft did indeed strike the towers that day. The second was a modified Boeing IMO, and the first was an unknown entity, perhaps a Boeing but probably not.

But I would like to ask you a question if I may, based upon your apparent knowledge of aircraft structures.

The fuselage section piece shown in the Moussaoui trial, the piece allegedly from 93 at Shanksville, was planted evidence IMO, as there was no Boeing there that day.

I have been told by a poster on another site that the window spacing on that piece is not consistent with the window spacing on a 757. In his opinion the spacing is much closer to that of a 727.